Shibu R vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18137 Ker

WP(C) NO. 17880 OF 2021      1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 17880 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          SHIBU R,
          AGED 48 YEARS,
          SON OF RAGHAVAN PILLAI,
          HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (NATURAL SCIENCE), C P HIGHER
          SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTIKKADU, CHADAYAMANGALAM,
          KOLLAM DISTRICT-691534.

          BY ADVS.
          V.A.MUHAMMED
          M.SAJJAD



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
          EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2     THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
          JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

    3     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
          KOLLAM AT THEVALLY-691009.

    4     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691305.

    5     THE MANAGER,
          C P HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTIKKADU,
          CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691534.



          SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17880 OF 2021                    2

                                       JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he was appointed as HST (NS) in the C.P.

Higher Secondary School, Kuttikkadu, an aided school, under the management

of the 5th respondent. He contends that his appointment was approved only

from 01.06.2011 onwards. He is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents in

approving his appointment for the period from 01.06.2009 onwards. He states

that narrating his grievances, he has preferred Ext.P7 representation, which is

pending before the Government. It is in the afore circumstances that the

petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

"i) call for the records relating to Exhibits-P2, P3 and P9 and set aside the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get approval to her appointment from 01.06.2009 onwards and consequential benefits.

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner from 01.06.2009 as HSA and disburse the attendant benefits forthwith.

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit-P7 with notice to the petitioner and in a time bound manner."

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the learned Government Pleader. In view of the limited nature of the relief

sought for by the petitioner, notice to the party respondent is dispensed with.

3. Sri. M.Sajjad submitted that it is settled by now that in case

appointments are made against anticipated additional posts, it has to be

deemed that the managers had executed that bond. The learned counsel

submits that the petitioner is entitled to get approval from 01.06.2009 onwards

and also the attendant benefits. According to the learned counsel, the

petitioner would be satisfied if the 1st respondent is directed to take up Ext.P7

representation and take a decision taking note of the law laid down in Exts.P4

and P5 judgments.

4. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances,

I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the

following directions:

a) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assertions

made in Ext.P7 representation, the 1st respondent is

directed to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on

Ext.P7 filed by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as

well as the 5th respondent, taking note of the law laid down

by this Court in Exts.P4 and P5 judgments. Orders shall be

passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

b) While considering the representation, the Secretary to

Government shall bear in mind that the Managers would be

deemed to have executed the bond and also that they would

be obliged to make appointments from the list of protected

teachers equal to the number of appointments approved

during the ban period.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ

petition along with the judgment before the concerned

respondent for further action.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE DSV

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17880/2021

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2009.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B6/2629/2010.K.DIS 29.06.2020 OF THE DEO, PUNALUR.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/13997/2010/K.DIS DATED 03.11.2010 OF THE DDE, KOLLAM.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.

NO.2290/2015 DATED 25.07.2017.

Exhibit P5          TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA
                    NO.2091/2018 DATED 28/06/2019.

Exhibit P6          TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER

NO.60930/J2/11/G.EDN DATED 25.10.2011.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.07.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE DDE, KOLLAM BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDT.NO.N.DIS.B6/17918/16 DATED 05.10.2016 OF THE DDE, KOLLAM.

RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL